Not Novus ordo but Ordo salutis (order of salvation), that is what I mean. In general, theologians I have read pose a logical order of salvation (how a man is saved) as opposed to a temporal sequence. Rightly so ,because some aspects happen co-existentially.
This came to mind as I was reading the BoC- Solid Declarations Article III. In there it clarifies how the terms justification and regeneration are being used in the Apology.
As I was reading this article, it reminded me of a couple of things. First, this clarification is following the wise procedure of distinguishing categories and IMHO-- justification is not the same as regeneration properly speaking, they are distinct categories but related. This is akin to the post I think I made on reconciliation not the same as justification, they are distinct but related.
It reminded me as well of how the Reformed have a well articulated ordo while the Concordians do not speak of this as much. It is left without much mechanistic explanation.
The Reformed says the following: 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30).
On the Lutheran side, J. A. Quenstedt suggested this: 1.) calling, 2.)regeneration,3.) conversion, 4.) justification, 5.) mystical union, 6.) renewal (sanctification?).
Notice that the two coincide in regeneration->conversion->justification.
I am not so sure of Quenstedt's suggestion in entirety. It my reading of the Solid Declaration, it seems after calling comes conversion, justification and then regeneration.
My proposal is conversion->justification->regeneration.
I could be amiss here, I am happy to be corrected because I am sure Quenstedt has a far superior theological acumen compared to mine.
I base mine on John 1: 12-14.
However it seems to me though if regeneration (the giving of a new heart) is ahead of conversion and justification, then logically speaking faith is the good fruit of regeneration and looks like faith is one of the good work of a good heart. Hence, faith can be seen as another good work.
I suspect I am being thick headed once more but I welcome correction as to why we should follow Quenstedt's. Why am I disagreeing with him? Am I not fully accounting the evidence?
Thanks for the help.